Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

Digital Dan writes "Twitter is being sued for patent infringement. Surprised? OK, probably not, but you'd think the plaintiff would at least wait for Twitter to actually make money before striking. According to TechCrunch: 'Twitter is being sued ... by TechRadium, a Texas-based technology company which makes mass notification systems for public safety organizations, the military, and utilities.' The abstract to patent #7130389 describes it: 'A digital notification and response system utilizes an administrator interface to transmit a message from an administrator to a user contact device. The system comprises a dynamic information database that includes user contact data, priority information, and response data. The administrator initiates distribution of the message based upon grouping information, priority information, and the priority order.' Two other patents are involved as well."

Here's a clue for all of you that posted so far: The abstract of a patent is not the patent, and means diddly-squat in court. It's the CLAIMS that are important (how many times does this need to be repeated here?). In fact, abstracts are NOT supposed to describe the exact material that the patent claims as an invention, but to describe generally the area of the patent.
Here's the second clue: the patent has one independent claim (claim 1), and all other claims are specificly narrowed cases of claim 1. Here's claim 1:

1. A digital notification and response system, comprising:
a. an administrator interface for preparing and transmitting a message from an administrator to at least one user contact device;
b. a dynamic information database for storing the message, wherein the dynamic information database comprises;
i. user contact data comprising:
1. user contact device information; and
2. user selected priority information that indicates a contact order for the user contact device;
ii. user selected grouping information comprising:
1. at least one group associated with each user contact device; and
2. a priority order for contacting each user contact device within the group;
iii. response data comprising:
1. user response information that indicates individual user contact devices have received the message; and
2. response information that indicates when insufficient user contact device information exists to contact the user contact devices;
wherein the administrator initiates distribution of the message using the grouping information, priority information, and the priority order, and wherein the message is transmitted through at least two industry standard gateways simultaneously, wherein the two industry standard gateways are selected from the group consisting of: a SMTP gateway a SIP, an H.323, an ISDN gateway, a PSTN gateway, a softswitch, and combinations thereof, wherein the message is received by the at least one user contact device, and the at least one user contact device transmits a response through the industry standard gateways to the dynamic information database.

Now, to interpret the meaning of the claims, it is necessary to read the specification, to see if the terms used have special definitions. Studying the exemplary embodiments described in the specification may also be informative (or not, depending).

Yeah, sure, I'll buy that the astract is general and the Devil is in the details.

The problem is your specifications are pretty much the definition of "broadcast" in the telecom world. I'll bet I could even put together an argument that the patent covers a shared line appearance or a hunt group on your phone. Twitter's appeal isn't that it's novel -- it's that it's convenient.

Now, if you'll excuse me , I need to go patent my new invention of designating a person or device by assigning a number to them...

Now, to interpret the meaning of the claims, it is necessary to read the specification, to see if the terms used have special definitions. Studying the exemplary embodiments described in the specification may also be informative (or not, depending)

Yup. What amazes me is how few geeks seem to know this stuff. Patents (and copyright, and even trademark) have a big impact on software. You'd think every programmer would learn the basics of these subjects, as part of being a competent professional.

Excellent point; though from reading that, I'd be hard-pressed to see where twitter is doing what they claim it is doing. It sounds like they're challenging twitter's ability to send text messages (ie, messages to devices about new 'tweets') but...

iii. response data comprising:
1. user response information that indicates individual user contact devices have received the message; and
2. response information that indicates when insufficient user contact device information exists to contact the user contact devices;
wherein the administrator initiates distribution of the message using the grouping information, priority information, and the priority order, and wherein the message is transmitted through at least two industry standard gateways simultaneously,

Where's the second simultaneous gateway used when "insufficent user contact device information" notification is sent? For that matter, when nis "insufficient user contact device informatioN" sent at all? And the device itself does not notify the twitter service

This means I can no longer email my employees and contractors about work from my administrative account and have to erase my administrative address book. I also have to return all the company pagers!. Well returning the pagers might actually save me some bucks.

Wow! How did this ever get approved as a patent? Talk about obviousness.

I have prior art for this, but unfortunately, I wrote it and it's never been published. This was a work for hire. I wrote a mainframe program that used a central database t

Other than this piece of nonsense, which I take to mean "you can use just about any channel for communications", the patent is very similar to a soccer team call-down list.

The problem is, you can't just generalize a claim term like that. The patentee cannot just go into court, and say, "Your honor, this limitation just means that you can use just about any channel for communications. So they infringe." And the defendant can't go into court and say, "Your honor, this just says... so this prior art anticipates it." Each and every word in that big, long, messy clause has a meaning and limits the scope of the claim. You can't just discount the fact, for example, that the me

What you think is irrelevant. Read the patents in question, read the claims (and how it is refined by the body), then let us know the relevant prior art. Better even, draw up a claim chart with every single element of the claim, as I am sure TechRadium would have done.

this isn't the court case. the GP doesn't need to produce citations just because you demand it. this is a bunch of people discussing the filing of the lawsuit. the nature of a casual discussion is to share opinions, not list facts. the GP is allowed an opinion. you are not the judge. get over yourself.

You read all the claims. You can focus on the independent claims. Then for each claim, make a list of elements. Elements are features, items, actions, etc. Now think Boolean. If that entire list of elements existed before in one place (in prior art), then that claim shouldn't have been granted*. If your device is missing anything from the list, then the claim doesn't cover your device. If there is any ambiguity in what an element is, then you read the specification for clarification. Repeat for each

I do think it's rather dumb to sue a company that isn't making any money and has no real prospects for doing so, but that just makes them dumb too; not a patent troll.

It's not so dumb if you consider that they could lose customers if their customers realize they could use Twitter for free as a replacement for their product that they're probably paying lots of money for. Maybe they're simply seeking an injunction to protect their business model? I'm not condoning their actions, as I support the notion that increased competition forces competitors to create better products.

I never said it was my invention, I said I maintained a system that went into production in 1968.

I didn't maintain it until 1982.

Yes, there was a priority, yes it specified devices and gateways. This was 1968 on TTY (which was carried by satellite, telephone, rusty barbed wire, etc). If you agree that 5 bit baudot TTY and "normal" TTY interfaces make up "industry standard gateways" then yes to that too. Do you know what stunt box does? Hint: it isn't IPv4.

No kidding. I'm thinking of the notification systems the research group I work for developed back in the 90's - the way they worked was very similar to this patent. And we were not by any means the only player in the business of notification software.

I did stuff like this when I was in New Orleans (1994 to 1999). Used an MS SQL Server database (version 4.2 OS/2 1.3), PowerBuilder app code (PB4), and a modem (to send pages through AT&T's interface at the time). The system would first page the on-call pager. If no response within the prescribed time, it would escalate to the back-up pager. If no response, it would page the manager. I doubt that stuff is even in use any more. Sounds like some prior art.....too bad I don't have access to any of th

The patent appears to be specific as to purpose and how it would work. So specific, in fact, that Twitter doesn't intrude at all. In order to make Twitter fit so as to be intruding into their patents, you have to broaden the application of the idea so that the technical implementation is no longer important.

Upon broadening the interpretation, a lot of prior art clouds the validity of TechRadium's patents (e.g. using a megaphone to shout at a large crowd is technically a "message sender" sending out one me

People who are pressured to meet review quotas despite being severely understaffed, underfunded, and severely backlogged all while not being - or having access to - anything approaching an expert in the appropriate technologies.

The USPTO has been unable to keep up and apparently resorts to strictly procedural methods for approval. Dot your "i"s and cross your "t"s and I bet you could get anything patented nowadays.=Smidge=

Yup, a sad artifact of the fact that all money the USPTO brings in from various fees goes into a general government budget pool that the USPTO has to fight for access to and receives no consideration for the fact that the money is there in the first place due to them.

Letting a bureaucratic patent examiner be the final arbiter of patent claims leaves the potential for errors with far-reaching (for the applicants) consequences, never mind the potential for abuse.

The Patent Office's current practice seems to be "If everything appears to be in order, grant the patent -- any disputes can be settled in court".

The reason this is a somewhat logical approach is because in court, both sides of the dispute have the ability to present their cases, which theoretically results in a fairer result.

The downside, of course, is the cost (both public cost, and the litigants' costs) of hearings and/or trials. As usual, when lawyers write the laws and regulations, lawyers benefit from them.

And while court costs and legal fees have a way of squeezing out the little guy, it's reassuring to me that patents can be argued in court, and applicants aren't *entirely* dependent on the whim of a patent examiner or two.

Yeah, Obama is evil and the Democrats are psychotic control freaks who want to do weird medical experiments on the US people and create an army of mutant zombie liberals that derive pleasure only by paying 80% taxes...

For crying out loud, boy, get a grip. The people at your HMO will do everything that they legally can to kill you rather than pay for your medical treatment. You should fear the people who want everything to be the same.

The difference is that the HMOs have already demonstrated that even people who pay their premiums may be denied coverage that the doctor thinks is appropriate. Your claim that the government will do this is largely imaginary in that it has yet to be proven. The fox news spin on the health plan is little more than fear mongering, given that all of the complaints that they give already are present in the current private system. I don't like the plan proposed, but the spin against it does little to actually

It hasn't been the medicine that's expensive for me, it's been the medical tests themselves - it cost me something like $2000 to get a head CT (which was a waste, because it showed I'm perfectly fine). If they're charging $2000 per head CT, then given how often those machines are used, they have to have paid off the actual cost of the machine long ago... so it's the doctors and hospitals themselves that are charging so much.

I do think it's rather dumb to sue a company that isn't making any money and has no real prospects for doing so, but that just makes them dumb too; not a patent troll.

Why is it dumb? Presumably they have assets that could be taken to satisfy a judgment. Waiting until they start making millions of bucks and then filing your lawsuit would seem to be more questionable than just filing it. The former suggests that you are only in it for the money. The latter suggests that you may actually care about your patent.

And don't forget the entire purpose of the patent in the first place... to provide the patent holder a limited duration monopoly on the products described by the patent. By suing, they can force twitter to shut down, or at least force them into a licensing agreement which will eliminate them as a competitor.

Now, whether twitter actually IS a potential competitor, or whether the patent should have been granted in the first place, are completely different issues.

Patents are evil, they should never have been added to our constitution. They serve no useful social role. Processes are what people come up with to get something useful done. They are not themselves the goal of any useful society or societal actor. The original (ill-conceived) intent of patents was to allow clever commoners to make a living by doing nothing but thinking things up. What this does is create artificial 'property' out of an otherwise unlimited resource (e.g. thought). Producing scarcity where none SHOULD exist.

So instead of negotiating price on prime real-estate. Or convincing somebody to give up their precious time to labor on your behalf, we instead have royalties, and more importantly, denial of service. Namely, I can prevent your innovation by strategically patenting random otherwise-useless things that I know can prevent you from accomplishing real work (that otherwise benefits society).

If I were strategically buying up land to prevent your rail-road, it would be the same thing.. Or if I were hiring the only people technically capable of doing your work (i.e. MS paying off big Linux gurus), then it would be the same thing. But, in those situations, we're dealing with real materials. IP is fictionally held ransom by the US founders. If we'd been founded 100 years before or 100 years later, we wouldn't have had IP. It's right up there with our funky archaic embeded masonic imagery.

Therefore suing for patent infringement is trolling. Constitution be dammned.

The concept of patents for the designs of mechanical engineers seems to have at least the fundamentals of a good idea. It takes quite a bit of effort to get some mechanical device created, a process developed to make the thing, distributed to various retail outlets (or to potential customers for devices intended more for businesses than ordinary consumers), and the cash flow coming back to the group that made the thing in the first place.

Keep in mind that the constitutional provision asserts that purpose of both patents and copyright is to "promote the useful arts and science".

Where the problem has come in not only this case but a great many others is the expansion of the role of a patent to cover things like business methods, genetic sequences, computer software (originally unpatentable), and other more nebulous ideas and theoretical constructs that have nothing to do with an actual tangible item. None of these should have patent protection, and IMHO it is an abuse of constitutional authority to even grant these kind of patents.

Furthermore, I would have to agree that patents in and of themselves, even in regards to mechanical patents, are a waste of government bureaucrats and courts. They don't do what they claim (protecting the independent entrepreneur/inventor), nor to they really provide any benefit for society as a whole, nor even promote scientific endeavors. I dare anybody to show an independent private "inventor" who creates something and makes money by selling the idea to some mega-corporation for royalties. It doesn't happen.

It seems quite plausible that where there are large initial development costs that must be born by the developer, but which need not be born by those who copy the development, then patents with a limited lifespan may well be justifiable. And there are such cases.

The extension of patents into areas where the initial development costs are minimal (less than the cost of defending a patent suit, or prosecuting such a suit successfully) is, however, destructive to society.

After every tragic event, from Katrina to the VT shootings, companies would be calling me (I was network manager at a small college) constantly wanting to sell me their product to send texts to people in case of an emergency. They charged an ungodly amount of money. Considering all the different patents and stuff these guys claim to have had, they are going to all wipe each other off the face of the earth.On a side note, we put a list of common Email to SMS gateways up for our students(ie xxx-xxx-xxxx@sms

As far as I can tell, email distribution lists and automated rules for re-sending email after receiving them from an email list is also covered under the claims in this patent. How did the patent examiners fail to see this?

I would think automated Robotic Calling programs, which have been around for...sheesh...at least a decade now...would qualify as prior art here.

I acknowledge that at least the suing company is in the market of actually selling something to 911's, EMS's and the like, and the increasing use of twitter for "Follow me for important safety updates" is probably cutting into their business...dramatically....but...I don't think this lawsuit deserves legs.

The problem with patents is that one can sit in a dark room and dream up every conceivable thing that may plausibly be invented, patent it and then sit back and either watch the cash roll in for doing bugger all... or the whole of human development has to wait for your patent to expire.
I am sick of it. We should scrap patents completely. If you have got a secret way of doing something, then it is up to you to exploit it and keep it secret. If somebody else discovers, either independently or through espi

A digital notification and response system utilizes an administrator interface to transmit a message from an administrator to a user contact device. The system comprises a dynamic information database that includes user contact data, priority information, and response data. The administrator initiates distribution of the message based upon grouping information, priority information, and the priority order.

a. an administrator interface for preparing and transmitting a message from an administrator to at least one user contact device;

b. a dynamic information database for storing the message, wherein the dynamic information database comprises;i. user contact data comprising:1. user contact device information; and2. user selected priority information that indicates a contact order for the user contact device;ii. user selected grouping information comprising:1. at least one group associated with each user contact device; and2. a priority order for contacting each user contact device within the group;iii. response data comprising:1. user response information that indicates individual user contact devices have received the message; and2. response information that indicates when insufficient user contact device information exists to contact the user contact devices;wherein the administrator initiates distribution of the message using the grouping information, priority information, and the priority order, and wherein the message is transmitted through at least two industry standard gateways simultaneously, wherein the two industry standard gateways are selected from the group consisting of: a SMTP gateway a SIP, an H.323, an ISDN gateway, a PSTN gateway, a softswitch, and combinations thereof, wherein the message is received by the at least one user contact device, and the at least one user contact device transmits a response through the industry standard gateways to the dynamic information database.

Finally, someone who understands that the abstract is meaningless. The claim is what matters here.

And speaking of the claim. 1.i.2.: "user selected priority information that indicates a contact order for the user contact device;" I am not aware of Twitter allowing a user to prioritize contact order.

And 1.iii.1.: "user response information that indicates individual user contact devices have received the message;" Again, I am not aware of Twitter doing this. Perhaps for ad tracking purposes, but other

Lots of them allow groups, with various contact details for each group member and message delivery to multiple devices based on priority.

In fact, about the only thing that might be missing would be the administration interface for preparing and transmitting. Do any of the packages around pre 2005 allow preparing and delivering a one off message?

I patent a frame with two axles, four wheels and a motor to drive two of the wheels. You patent a frame with two axles, four wheels, a motor to drive two of the wheels, and a radio. You can't make and sell your dingus without infringing mine.

Of course I can. Patents were made to encourage innovation, not cauterize entire branches of invention through the greed of a single, well-worded man. Perhaps a few court cases disagree, but the intent of the system was clear on this.

Although the USPTO is projected to earn $1.346 billion in revenue, President Bush's budget mandates a spending cap of only $1.139 billion for 2002. The remaining $207 million dollars in revenue will once again, as in previous years, be stripped from the USPTO and the Intellectual Property community.

[...]

The USPTO is 100% fee-funded, meaning that all operating funds are the direct result of application and maintenance fees paid by patent and trademark owners and applicants. Unlike the vast majority of other government agencies, the USPTO's operating expenses pose no tax burden to the general citizenry.

I guess all I get to be pissed about are "all the fucking terrible trials that inevitably pop up from their failings."

While they no doubt have actual products based on those patents, looking at when they applied for the ones that resemble wall, sms, email, instant messaging and other similar technologies, it appears that they started applying for many of them around 2000ish... that is long after those services I listed were in existence. They do seem to have a few valid patents though, one involving travel reservation system and such that was filed in 1988, although I have not looked into the details of that patent. The

Sounds like a one-to-many distribution or broadcast. Wow, that's original. Patents like this should have failed the obviousness test and if the patent holder had some novel method that made it work better than any other system, then protect it by a trade secret.

I wrote something like this 20 years ago to allow a company to contact all their offices with one message. And, I know that Wal-Mart had a system to send notices to groups of their stores from the HQ before that. This is a common idea, and how it could get patented is beyond reason.

having read the patent, it has one novel aspect differentiating it from a general message system: it relies on two or more gateways to relay messages to different user devices, allowing users to prioritize the order in which their devices receive notification. this as opposed to, say, only an sms gateway, or only an email gateway.

that said, i don't pay enough attention to twitter to know whether or not its actually infringing.

Yeah, fails on the obvious part. It appears to be just a database hooked to a bunch of different communication devices that can be rigged for group broadcasting. Interesting perhaps, useful perhaps. Patentable? Maybe, just maybe, the specific implementation but as a general concept can we say "broadcast fax"? I knew we could!

It looks like the USPO is using a very lax definition of 'someone skilled in the art' for these sorts of patents. Maybe they thought Idiocracy was a documentary?

Yeah, fails on the obvious part. It appears to be just a database hooked to a bunch of different communication devices that can be rigged for group broadcasting. Interesting perhaps, useful perhaps. Patentable? Maybe, just maybe, the specific implementation but as a general concept can we say "broadcast fax"? I knew we could!"

You are contradicting yourself. You state the claim as "a database hooked to a bunch of different communication devices that can be rigged for group broadcasting". But then you cla

...is it just me or does the concept of "mass notification systems that allow a group administrator or 'message Author' to originate a single message that will be delivered simultaneously via multiple communication gateways to members of a group of 'message Subscribers'" encompass things such as newspapers and cable TV?

Yes, it does encompass those things, IMO.

It does not I believe, include Twitter.

Why?

Because Twitter (1) does not use an administrator to originate a message, and (2) doesn't "deliver" a message. It posts a message, where it must then be retrieved. Push vs. pull. Big difference.

Ah but the definition of administrator is either: 1. One who administers, especially one who works as a manager in a business, government agency, or school.
2. Law One appointed to administer an estate.

Def. 2 can't really apply in this case so Def.1 is the only definition that could be used. The verb use of administer is:
1. to manage (an organization or estate)
2. to organize and put into practice: anyone can learn to administer the test procedure

So a lawyer would have to argue that twitter allows someone to organize and put into practice either a process or a protocol that they have control over. He would further have to argue that every single twitter account is an administrator of some sort in order to make his/her case.

Everybody who isn't seriously mentally ill or seriously mentally disabled is an administrator of some aspect of his or her own life. And if you own a personal computer, you probably know the password of an administrator account on that computer.

I am the administrator of my twitter account. The message is delivered when the client retrieves it. Okay, not really, I don't use twitter, but everyone who posts is effectively the administrator of their own account.

The push vs pull argument is retarded as in almost every case with just a slightly different point of view you can make it appear the exact opposite. In a TCP connection, which side is pushing and which side is pulling? The initiator or the listener? Hmm? Depends on which level you're loo

So despite Twitter being around for years, this firm just now decided that they're infringing on patents?

It can easily take a couple years or more from the time you notice something that you think might infringe your patent to filing suit, especially when the potential infringer is a web service, so you can't get a hold of it to reverse engineer.

Actually, as per the language quoted in TFS, the concept of the notification page is infringing as well. You (the administrator) are transmitting a message to a user communication device (the web server) with grouping information (directories), user contact information (their login info) and response data (a return email address).

Well, just looking at claim 1, there is no Bilski problem. It's a system claim; not a method. A system claim will likely survive any review under Bilski since it's going to be tied to a particular machine. In particular, an administrator interface and a database would be sufficient not to mention the fact that it has to be capable of receiving user input. Good try though.